Post by dark66horse on Feb 15, 2009 12:08:42 GMT -5

How can Paul McCartney and Billy be together in the same photograph (1966-8)?

The answer is simple.

Paul was not dead at that time!Paul was sick and tired!Paul wanted to be a paperback writer!Paul asked to be replaced, and the other Beatles agreed!Billy was the choice!Got to get you into my (Paul's) life!

Post by on Feb 20, 2009 23:03:51 GMT -5

the original photo was published in Issue 61 of "The Beatles Book" (August 1968)so no photoshop

Maybe not Photoshop, but they definitely had ways to make photo composites & tamper w/ photos. Just look at the pixelation pattern in the photo where the bridge is. That pattern is not consistent throughout. That is enough to convince me it's been tampered w/ & isn't legit.

Ok, the photo is still good to show that pics have been tampered w/, I suppose, but it does nothing to show that Paul was still around in 1968.

Post by dark66horse on Feb 21, 2009 16:10:05 GMT -5

quote: "The Beatles Book Monthly" is well known for it's tampered photos

I agree with you, but if "The Beatles Book Monthly" intention was to eliminate suspects about Paul's death / replacement and show Beatles fans that everything was normal, that there's only one Paul McCartney from 1942 to now, I wonder for what reason should they have tampered the photo by puttting 2 or 3 Pauls in the same picture with the concrete risk to generate dangerous suspects about paul's death / replacement?

Post by fauxster on Feb 18, 2010 22:02:37 GMT -5

I've taken the most obvious problematic sections of the photo & enlarged them.

Left - There is a grid-like pixelation pattern throughout most of the background. It's almost like a web on top of the picture. See how it's on the right side of the blow-up, but not on the left side?

Middle - Notice how there is no pixelation whatsoever in this section? It's stark white. Absolutely no "netting" pixelation to be seen.

Right - I don't know what's up w/ this. Maybe it was the Philadelphia Experiment & this guy's head became one with the post?

Because of the inconsistencies in the pixelation pattern, I say that this is a composite of several different images. I also say it fails as "proof" that Paul was still around in 1968. First of all, it's inconclusive as to whether that is actually Paul's picture. Even if it is, it could easily have been pasted in. Other parts of the image have clearly been doctored, so the image is already highly suspect. Maybe the 2 Fauls were pasted in, too. Who knows?